CVE-2026-5463
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCommand injection vulnerability in console.run_module_with_output() in pymetasploit3 through version 1.0.6 allows attackers to inject newline characters into module options such as RHOSTS. This breaks the intended command structure and causes the Metasploit console to execute additional unintended commands, potentially leading to arbitrary command execution and manipulation of Metasploit sessions.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceCommand injection vulnerability in pymetasploit3 library's console.run_module_with_output() function allows attackers to inject newline characters into module options such as RHOSTS. These newlines break the intended command structure, causing the Metasploit console to execute additional unintended commands beyond the original module execution, potentially leading to arbitrary command execution and session manipulation.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.0.6CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check if pymetasploit3 is installedRun 'pip show pymetasploit3' or check your Python environment's installed packages for 'pymetasploit3'Affected if pymetasploit3 is installed and its version is 1.0.6 or lower
-
Verify the installed versionCompare the installed pymetasploit3 version against the affected range: <= 1.0.6Affected if The installed version is 1.0.6 or any lower version number
-
Identify use of console.run_module_with_output()Search your codebase for calls to pymetasploit3's console.run_module_with_output() method, particularly in automation scripts or APIs that process user inputAffected if Your code uses this method to run Metasploit modules
-
Inspect module option handling for RHOSTS or similar parametersReview how module options like RHOSTS, LHOST, or other options are passed to run_module_with_output(); examine whether external input flows directly into these options without validationAffected if Module options accept raw user input or untrusted data without filtering newlines or control characters
-
Check for input sanitization on module optionsReview the code that builds or passes options to run_module_with_output(); look for absence of filtering or escaping of newline characters before passing options to the Metasploit consoleAffected if Newline and control character filtering is not implemented on module option inputs
-
Audit usage patterns for multi-command injection riskExamine logs or runtime behavior when module options contain newline characters; verify whether the Metasploit console interprets newlines as command separatorsAffected if Newlines in module options are not rejected and are passed through to the Metasploit console
You are affected if pymetasploit3 version 1.0.6 or lower is installed AND your code passes untrusted input to module options (like RHOSTS) via console.run_module_with_output() without filtering newline characters.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scopedImplement input validation to filter or escape newline characters (\n, \r) from user-supplied module options before passing them to the Metasploit console, or upgrade to a patched version of pymetasploit3 after v1.0.6.
pymetasploit3 version greater than 1.0.6 (check GitHub releases or PyPI for the specific fixed release)
- Check the current installed version of pymetasploit3 using: pip show pymetasploit3
- Verify the vulnerability exists by examining the console.run_module_with_output() method in the library
- Consult the official pymetasploit3 repository on GitHub (github.com) and PyPI (pymeta.org) to identify the latest stable release that addresses this command injection vulnerability
- Upgrade to the fixed version using: pip install --upgrade pymetasploit3
- After upgrading, validate that the new version properly sanitizes newline characters in module options like RHOSTS
- Test that module execution still functions correctly with valid inputs
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-5463 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-5463 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data